The court cannot direct the appropriate authority to apply the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure to entertain an application under Section 269-UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is the province of the concerned authorities to determine whether they have the necessary powers to entertain the application after the statutory time limit fixed under the Act and the Rules.

1. This is an application for amendment of plaint by inserting two additional paragraphs as 6-A and 6-B and for adding a certain prayer before para 9(a) of the plaint.

2. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the application for amendment of the plaint are as follows:

The suit is for specific performance of the agreement between the parties dated 7-2-1991. The defence in main is that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 269-UC of the Income-tax Act, that the agreement entered into for the sale of the suit property is unenforcable under law, that the defendants represented their inability to follow the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 269-UC and that the deponent of the affidavit is aware of the serious lacuna. No such representation was made and the sequence of events set out in the plaint would show that such allegations are not true. Since the suit is defended on the ground of noncompliance of Section 269-UC of the Income-tax Act, the plaint has to be properly amended. The prayer, as already stated, is for introduction of certain paragraphs as 6-A and 6-B and for adding before para 9(a) certain additional prayer.

2.1. The application is opposed. The first respondent has filed a counter stating that the aid of the Court cannot be sought to effect the compliance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 196 f with reference to the suit agreement. The applicant cannot be allowed to rewrite or amend the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The suit agreement dated 7-2-1991 is void from the beginning because knowingly or unknowingly the parties failed to comply with Chapter XX-C which over-rides all other laws and the proposed amendment of the plaint cannot breathe any life into it. The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit had been raised by the respondent and in order to get over the preliminary issue, the applicant has belatedly filed the present application seeking amendment of the plaint. There can be no direction to the Income-tax Department particularly when it is not party to the suit.

3. The point for consideration is whether the amendment prayed for should be allowed.

4. The suit, as already stated, is for specific performance. The amendment prayed for is as follows:

“6-A. It is submitted that the non compliance of the provisions of the Income-tax Act particularly 269-UC will not be a bar to the prayer made for specific performance and further this Honble Court has got ample power to direct the parties to comply with the said provision. Even though it is not contemplated in exact words under the agreement in question, it is an implied contract that all law prevailing as on the date of agreement shall be adhered to by the parties to make the sale and the registration of the sale deed effective and in accordance with the law. Hence it is absolutely essential that the defendant should be directed to sign along with the plaintiff in the statement to be prepared in accordance with Sec. 269-UC read with Rule 48-L and Form No. 37-I as provided under Section 269-UC(3) of the Income-tax Act and present the same along with the plaint before the appropriate authority constituted under the provisions of Section 269-UC sub clause (3) of the Act. There is every likelihood that the defendants may not comply with the directions of this Honble Court in doing the same and hence in default of the defendants doing so, the Honble Court may permit the plaintiff to sign on behalf of the plaintiff and on behalf of the defendants also the said statement and permit the plaintiff to present the same before the appropriate authority as aforesaid.

6-B. Though Rule 48-L of the Income-tax Act prescribes a period of 15 days from the date of agreement for furnishing Form 37-1 of the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority has got ample powers to condone the delay in appropriate cases either applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Sect